M
MAJOR_Baker
Guest
Freedom of speech?
Hate speech or?
On April 28, the Canadian Senate dealt a serious blow to free speech and religious freedom. It passed Bill C 250 to amend the criminal code to expand its definition of an â Å“identifiable groupâ ? relating to hate propaganda to include any section of the public distinguished by sexual orientation. The legislation is the work of openly gay Member of Parliament Svend Robinson.
The passage of this bill poses great concern. It restricts free speech and can be used as a tool for religious persecution against those who do not support the homosexual agenda. Gays are pushing to silence those who do not agree with them to the point of severely hindering the right to speak contrary to their social agenda.
It is disconcerting that parts of the Bible, as well as other religious texts and statements, can be labeled â Å“hate propaganda.â ? In addition, portions of the bill do not have the protection of the attorney general, which means that anyone can file a hate crime charge before the courts.
Consequently, ministers who preach in support of traditional marriage between one man and one woman only, and brand same-sex marriage as deviant behavior run the risk of being fined and/or faced with criminal prosecution. A judge could issue a warrant for the seizure of any materials being referenced.
It is important to understand that if it can happen in Canada, it could happen in America.
Although proponents state that the bill protects religious texts, a slippery slope has been created. MP Robinson has stated, â Å“A pastor would not be prosecuted for preaching against homosexuality on the basis of the Bible.â ? He further states â Å“That there are numerous assurances that any such charges would only apply to the most obnoxious or severe critics of homosexual behavior.â ?
However, without these â Å“assurancesâ ? spelled out in the legislation, problems loom. Who makes the determination as to what is obnoxious or severe criticism? Without specificity, it's left up to individual interpretation, and that's where the danger to individual freedom lies.
Similar legislation has been used to limit freedom of speech. According to a press release issued by the Catholic Civil Rights League, â Å“In January of this year a Swedish Pentecostal pastor was prosecuted for 'hate speech against homosexuals' for a sermon he preached last summer citing Biblical references to homosexuality.â ? This possible threat of prosecution is not limited to the clergy; it reaches to the average Canadian citizen.
Picture this: You're sitting in a public restaurant talking to some friends about how marriage should be defined. You say you do not agree with same-sex marriage, that marriage should be between one man and one woman only as God intended. The group at your table chimes in, agreeing with you. The person at the table or booth next to you files a complaint, charging that you were inciting a riot against gays.
Nothing could be further from the truth, but Canadian officials can pick you up, and you will go before the courts to allow them to interpret the intent of your words. For simply exercising your right to freedom of speech and thought, you run the risk of being fined, imprisoned or both under the vague and cloudy definitions found in the proposed legislation. If government can control what we can and cannot say, we've lost all of our liberties.
Why devote so much attention to Bill C 250? Canada is a democracy and member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Who would have thought that free speech restrictions would become a part of their laws? It could happen in America.
Thank God we have the First Amendment that is supposed to guarantee our freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom of religion for all Americans and not just some. We must be alert and vigilant, less we wake up one morning and find our endearing freedoms snatched away by those seeking special class protection. We should also be diligent about electing to public office those individuals who embrace freedom for every citizen in a free society
Hate speech or?
On April 28, the Canadian Senate dealt a serious blow to free speech and religious freedom. It passed Bill C 250 to amend the criminal code to expand its definition of an â Å“identifiable groupâ ? relating to hate propaganda to include any section of the public distinguished by sexual orientation. The legislation is the work of openly gay Member of Parliament Svend Robinson.
The passage of this bill poses great concern. It restricts free speech and can be used as a tool for religious persecution against those who do not support the homosexual agenda. Gays are pushing to silence those who do not agree with them to the point of severely hindering the right to speak contrary to their social agenda.
It is disconcerting that parts of the Bible, as well as other religious texts and statements, can be labeled â Å“hate propaganda.â ? In addition, portions of the bill do not have the protection of the attorney general, which means that anyone can file a hate crime charge before the courts.
Consequently, ministers who preach in support of traditional marriage between one man and one woman only, and brand same-sex marriage as deviant behavior run the risk of being fined and/or faced with criminal prosecution. A judge could issue a warrant for the seizure of any materials being referenced.
It is important to understand that if it can happen in Canada, it could happen in America.
Although proponents state that the bill protects religious texts, a slippery slope has been created. MP Robinson has stated, â Å“A pastor would not be prosecuted for preaching against homosexuality on the basis of the Bible.â ? He further states â Å“That there are numerous assurances that any such charges would only apply to the most obnoxious or severe critics of homosexual behavior.â ?
However, without these â Å“assurancesâ ? spelled out in the legislation, problems loom. Who makes the determination as to what is obnoxious or severe criticism? Without specificity, it's left up to individual interpretation, and that's where the danger to individual freedom lies.
Similar legislation has been used to limit freedom of speech. According to a press release issued by the Catholic Civil Rights League, â Å“In January of this year a Swedish Pentecostal pastor was prosecuted for 'hate speech against homosexuals' for a sermon he preached last summer citing Biblical references to homosexuality.â ? This possible threat of prosecution is not limited to the clergy; it reaches to the average Canadian citizen.
Picture this: You're sitting in a public restaurant talking to some friends about how marriage should be defined. You say you do not agree with same-sex marriage, that marriage should be between one man and one woman only as God intended. The group at your table chimes in, agreeing with you. The person at the table or booth next to you files a complaint, charging that you were inciting a riot against gays.
Nothing could be further from the truth, but Canadian officials can pick you up, and you will go before the courts to allow them to interpret the intent of your words. For simply exercising your right to freedom of speech and thought, you run the risk of being fined, imprisoned or both under the vague and cloudy definitions found in the proposed legislation. If government can control what we can and cannot say, we've lost all of our liberties.
Why devote so much attention to Bill C 250? Canada is a democracy and member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Who would have thought that free speech restrictions would become a part of their laws? It could happen in America.
Thank God we have the First Amendment that is supposed to guarantee our freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom of religion for all Americans and not just some. We must be alert and vigilant, less we wake up one morning and find our endearing freedoms snatched away by those seeking special class protection. We should also be diligent about electing to public office those individuals who embrace freedom for every citizen in a free society
